Labels

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The thrusting of democracy upon a country is the anti-thesis of democracy. To me, the concept for the people, by the people is what I deem as true. That is true democracy to me. If the country is not acting in the interests of its people then the people have every right to stand up and change the system. In this Kierkagaardian catalyst of standing up for what you believe, our government cater to the needs of its citizens. But keep in mind, democracy is a societal self-realization that is inspired by conversations that occur on the global stage. For example, America's involvement of Iraq and "spreading" democracy was not justified at all. It made the US look like these new age crusaders. There was a social division of US versus THEM. As if we are these vigilantes. I do not like that. I do not like that because I think that there are other ways to be the catalyst for change. I have mentioned in another blog about the importance of the osmosis of conversation, I think through this process, democracy is not forced. But there is a discussion about it or there are subliminal messages that spread democracy. For example, India fell in love with the image of America through Hollywood that later influenced Bollywood. My father fell in love with the idea of "freedom" by watching Indian films that addressed financial gain and self-prosperity. In the film shree 420, a man goes to the city and seeks a lifestyle for him that is all about individual economic gain, a concept that was somewhat foreign to India. With music and images of luxury like this, it motivated Indians like my father to look outside of India. In the process of that desire to look out into the rest of the world, it opened Indian society to look at the world in an economic context because they wanted things. In the process, economic growth leads to conceptual trade. This is how you slowly open up the conversation for democracy. Here is a video of what I am talking about: